 |
||
|
||
| OPINION |
|
||
|
||
| OPINION |
Political Intervention And Water Resources By Dr. AB Thapa. Soon after the political change of 1951,
Nepal opened itself to the outside world.
Harnessing our country’s water resources became
the burning issue. We were initially floundering
in our dealings with India. We made big
mistakes. We could make excuse for such
mistakes because we did not have past
experience of handling complicated water
resources problems on such a big scale.
However, there was dramatic improvement in our
ability to handle big water resources projects
shortly thereafter. We had learnt that we
should not hesitate to listen to the counsel of
appropriate experts. Top experts were consulted,
even if we had to call in such experts
from foreign countries to help us. In
1966 renowned water resources legal expert
Dante Copanera was in Nepal to help Nepal
to renegotiate the Kosi River Treaty with
India. That treaty was successfully renegotiated.
Similarly another expert Dr. Svek was invited
to help our country in late 1960s to
negotiate separate trade and transit treaties
with India. A high level advisory
committee was constituted to prepare the draft
treaties well in advance of the date fixed
for the bilateral meetings. The committee on
few occasions held its meetings in the
presence of Late Majesty King Mahendra. Mr. Pashupati
SJB Rana and Dr. P. Lohani from Tribhuban
University were representing academic group. Dr.
Lohani had conducted a study of the Calcutta
port to ascertain its future capacity to
handle goods in transit to and from
Nepal. Mr. B.B. Pandey, former Nepalese Ambassador
to Germany had submitted a detailed report
on facilities provided by port authorities of
Hamburg, Bremen and Rotterdam to landlocked
countries. I was also one of
the members of the above mentioned advisory
committee. Apart from few other matters, I had raised
the issue of extending high voltage
transmission lines through India to erstwhile
East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). In one of the
meetings of the committee Dr. Bhesh B. Thapa
then Finance Secretary had amused all
members by telling that I was intending to
lay a trap to electrocute Mr. Lal, Indian
Commerce Secretary who was expected to
negotiate the treaties on behalf of the
Indian Government. Trade and transit are
two different issues. Nepal tried very
hard to conclude two separate treaties.
Negotiations continued for a long time. We
all know that finally our country
succeeded in convincing India to accept
our proposal. Unfortunately in recent years, our ability
to handle even very important water resources
projects is in sharp decline. We are now
treating our mega water resources projects much the
same way as the Russia did with the
Alaska way back in 1860s. Even after such a long
time, still some people in Russia are accusing the
government of those days of thoughtlessly
agreeing to sell the Alaska to the USA.
Alaska Was Sold
to USA In 1654 Russian explorer Fedor
Alekseyev sailed east from the Kolyma Peninsula of Siberia across the
Bering Strait to Alaska. Shortly thereafter, the Alaska
became Russian possession. The vast landmass of
Alaska was virtually without human population. However,
Alaska was very rich in natural resources. People were
expecting to find big gold deposits. In 1843 U.S. Secretary of State William
Marcy and Senator William M. Gwin, both ardent expansionists, asked Baron Eduard Stoeckl,
the Russian ambassador to the United States, if rumors that the Alaska was for sale were
true. Stoeckl had said no. However, later on Russia decided to
sell Alaska and instructed Stoeckl to negotiate with the United States.
Stoeckl began discussions with U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward on March
11, 1867, and at the end of March they drew up the Treaty of Cession and sent it to their
governments for ratification. The agreed price was $7.2 million. The Gold Rush It was found that
the Alaska has vast deposits of gold soon after it
was sold to the USA. Thus, it was mining, not fishing, that
brought Alaska’s first population boom. Some gold mining had been done
since a long time back and the 1880 census had listed
many residents as miners. With the new gold discovery, people soon
flocked from all parts of the world. Alaska prospered, and new communities and
businesses developed to meet the gold seekers’ needs. Gold was mined and new
towns founded throughout Alaska. Nepal Should Correct
Itself It is often said
that many developing countries are unable to
bolster up the economy at a
reasonable pace not for want of natural
resources or capital. They are progressing
very slowly because their policy makers and
planners possess neither a clear vision
of their country’s development perspectives nor
the ability and true dedication to lead the
country in the path to victory over
underdevelopment and backwardness. Certainly in
this matter Nepal is not an exception. Our
country is also suffering from the same
type of ailment. Planners and policy makers
in our country lack clear vision and true
dedication to their works. Some foreign well
wishers of our country deeply worried about
our weaknesses have given us highly valuable
advices. Mr. Paul D. Terrell from Bechtel
International who was adviser consultant to
Multipurpose Karnali Project in an article
published in the journal “HIMAL” has given
Nepal a few very important advices. (a) Nepal
can decide NOT to build the Karnali Project, but Nepal
alone cannot decide TO BUILD the project, (b)
Nepal should beware of unintentional “give away”
in hydro development, and not rush to compromise the optimum
development for the sake of a quick deal, (c) The
present institutions should be wary of giving away
Nepali children’s rightful inheritance. Nepal Can Decide Not to Build Mr. Terrell has said that
Nepal can decide NOT to build the Project, but Nepal alone cannot
decide TO BUILD the project. It implies that our strongest
bargaining chip is our right NOT to build the
project. It is virtually a kind of threat
to compel the adversary in bilateral talk to
accept our terms and conditions. Canada had
used this bargaining chip to compel the USA
to concede and accept their demand in course
of finalization of the Columbia River Treaty.
Thus, it would be our grave mistake if
we believe that we can depend on a
private company to negotiate on our behalf
a fair deal with India. Lately we were completely
brainwashed by foreign multinational companies. We
were on the verge of handing over the
mammoth Karnali High Dam Project to one of
the multinational companies completely overlooking
downstream benefits to be accrued to Nepal.
This project involves a storage reservoir of
about 39 billion cubic meters in volume, which
is greater than the volume of reservoirs
of the Columbia River Projects estimated to
be about 18 billion cubic meters. Two US
presidents and two Canadian prime ministers
were themselves involved in talks that
continued for many years to finalize the
downstream benefit issues. It need not be
explained that the magnitude of downstream
benefits and storage volume of the reservoir
are dependant on one another. Canada Refused to Compromise on
Water Issues The Progressive Conservatives
Party’s Prime Minister of Canada John
Diefenbaker was a nationalist. He took a firm
stand on the Columbia River Treaty
between the USA and Canada in defense of
Canada’s national interest. The Columbia River
Treaty was signed at the White House in
January of 1961. Over the course of the
following summer, the United States Congress held
hearings in connection with the Treaty, which
ultimately led to its ratification. In Canada,
the approval process was virtually halted. Canada
realized after signing the Treaty at the White House that
it did not meet the aspiration of the Canadian
people. The Treaty effectively remained in
limbo. Diefenbaker’s government fell in 1963
election contest with the liberals. Soon after,
a new government was formed under the
leadership of the Prime Minister Pearson who
was regarded politically close to the USA. But he
too never compromised on water resources matters
in dealings with the USA.. Prime Minister
Pearson agreed to step in to ratify
the Treaty only after his meeting with
the US President at Hyannis Port. In that
meeting, it was agreed that the Treaty
would be implemented in a way, which met
the Canada’s concerns. Nepal Should Not
Rush to Compromise Optimum Development Mr. Terrell has cautioned
us that Nepal should beware of unintentional give away in hydro
development, and not rush to compromise the optimum development
for the sake of quick deal. Astonishingly, about 15
years after the publication of his article
in the HIMAL that carried his advice to
Nepalese people, our government is now in the
process of embarking on a foolish plan in
defiance of the opinion expressed in the
World Bank- financed study report to implement the
300 MW Upper Karnali Mini Project completely
ruining the prospect to develop the 4,000 MW Upper
Karnali Storage Project which undoubtedly is the
best among all large hydropower projects
identified so far in Nepal. Nepal might be able
to get easily up to 50% of the total
power in royalty from the private developers
if they are properly briefed about the
impressive advantages of the Upper Karnali
Storage Project. By comparison with the
mammoth 10,800 MW Karnali Chisapani Project the
firm head of the Upper Karnali Project would be
almost two times greater. It can be
derived based on Stage A Optimization Study
Data of the World Bank-financed Karnali
Project Study report that per KW installed
capacity construction cost of the Upper Karnali
Storage Project could be only about 70%
of such cost of the project at Chisapani.
It need not be explained that the firm
power generation of the Upper Karnali Storage
Project operating at two times bigger head
would also be two times greater from the
use of same volume of regulated flow of
the Karnali by comparison with the Karnali Chisapani
Project. In terms of energy production
the generation cost of per KWh firm
energy of the Upper Karnali Project could be
only about 40% of such cost of the
Karnali Chisapani Project. Thus, Nepal would be
justified to require that the private developer
pay about 50% power in royalty because
such royalty would still be less than the
total additional generation solely from the use
of the topographical advantage without involving further
investment. The total generation of
the Upper Karnali Project could be about
10,000 GWh. Nepal could get about 5,000GWh in
royalty. At present, there is a big surge
in demand for peaking power in India. The
generation cost of such power could be
about US Cents 12 per KWh. The amount in
royalty from the developers could be as
high as US$ 400 million per annum if it
is assumed that the electricity would be
sold at a price of only US Cents 8 per
KWh. We Should Not Betray Our Children Mr. Terrell has said that
our present institutions should be wary of
giving away Nepali children’s rightful
inheritance. We should really be ashamed of
ourselves to be told by an American
engineer not to betray our children by
denying them their rightful inheritance in future
in taking decision to implement mega projects. In Conclusion Like the presidents of
the USA or the prime ministers of Canada,
our head of government and concerned high
officials should also possess good first hand
working knowledge about our water resources.
Government should frequently organize seminars and
talk programs to acquaint policy makers with
water resources related issues. We should completely
discard wrong information about our water
resources. All of us including our friends in
media should not make fool ourselves particularly
in front of knowledgeable foreign people by
telling that Nepal is the second richest
country in the world in hydropower potential,
which is totally wrong. It is equally
wrong that Brazil is the richest country
in the world in hydropower potential. China is the richest country
in the world in hydropower potential. According
to one of the studies, the total
hydropower potential of China is estimated at
500,000 thousands MW. Very recently, a foreign
company had fooled our government and media
by proposing to export Karnali project power
to China. The vast hydropower potential
of China for the generation of cheap
electricity is in the Tibetan autonomous region,
which is located between Nepal and
the main load centers in the Eastern
China.. Thus, the possibility of exporting Karnali
power to China can be completely ruled out. (Dr. Thapa writes on water resources)
|
Send your feedback to the
editor: spot@mail.com.np |
